if the next decade plays out and these claims of world ending ai, given that there are many actors on this space who wont slow down or align their ai, doesnt actually eventuate will you feel kind of silly that you bought into this mass hysteria?

Surely there are enough experts that think there's a risk that at least considering corrective action will not retrospectively look silly? (Except perhaps with hindsight bias.)

They may well be wrong, but I'm not sure you can dismiss them so easily.

And the fact it is a prisoner dilemma problem doesn't mean it's unsolvable, sure it makes it hard, but we have made _some_ progress on climate change and that's a prisoner dilemma problem.

appeal to authority fallacy. imagine what galileo thought of the infallible experts of his time, if you consider what your actually saying the existence of concerned experts being evidence of a real threat is kind of wild argument to make

Indeed, just like those idiots who bought into ozone hole, Y2K, and climate change. People have always said we had problems but somehow humanity is still alive, therefore those problems must have been fake (/s obviously).

have you actually considered how this doomsday threat plays out, how exactly does the chat bot end civilisation

interestingly ai has reignited the craft of performance and efficiency in programming. overall in the macro timeline i think the profession is going to be in a better place

customers very rarely have budget for the time it takes to produce well engineered code

And thus they end up paying even more for badly engineered code

depends on the industry. but in consulting the hard part is dealing with customers who dont understand their own business and analysts who think writing software is rote factory work but somehow struggle to write a handful of coherent user stories not littered with subjective and ambiguous language

these two groups are telling me my time is numbered because of llm and ai when in-fact im struggling to see how ai doesnt replace them both

really good software engineers are expected to be experts in their job and that of the rest of the project team, these individuals are primed to be empowered by ai in a really disruptive way.

this is why space ai datacenter will scale faster than people expect

what about an android android hypervisor

tell me again why ai datacenters in space make no sense

Cosmic rays, launch costs, relative impossibility of maintenance, difficulty of heat dispersal, added latency, interconnect interference, no way to recycle when decommissioning.

Or we could build a power line.

Along with lack of cooling, the cost to launch hardware means that "servers in space" can never recover startup costs.

It would blot out the sky, ~30,000 acres per Gigawatt

Heat rejection.

intels gpu supports vgpu with no extra licence

this is just effort equilibrium something that wasnt as effective with “google it”. but ask a low effort question and get “ask claude” as a response is entirely appropriate.

junior developers on my team are often asking questions about our code base without even attempting to explore or self direct. “ask claude to look at <subsystem> and explain how its designed the key files and dependencies so that i can better understand it” is unsurprisingly effective and far cheaper than a couple of hours of opex

I find a llm in a harnes combined with manual ripgrep exploration is really effective of getting codebases. But you font always want to find what you find.

Apart from water usage which can be solved by using recycled water or closed loop cooling i fail to see what all the hysteria is over. Communities dont own power production and if usage causes costs to increase then investment in more production will follow.

The level of vitriol i see in all countries over data centers is looking more and more as a proxy against ai.

You can really see how a terrawatt of ai compute in space will make alot of sense vs on earth.

They are also noisy, polluting, and first and foremost we should endeavor to respect the will of the people in a democracy. Of course on some level it is a proxy against AI, but more importantly it's a proxy against the stratification of society. The problem is the gap between rich and poor.

> Communities dont own power production and if usage causes costs to increase then investment in more production will follow.

Years of higher electricity price is good reason to be against. The communities gain nothing from those data centers, so it is a bad deal.

And yes, AI industry made an extraordinary achievment in making themselves hated. 10/10 success of their own marketing and PR.

They’re almost universally bad for communities so constituents don’t want their councils to approve them?. It’s as simple as that.

Your town gets worse basically forever so the rich can get richer. Queue “hysteria”.

In addition to what others have already pointed out, these scumbags are also actively choosing to build these things in areas that are in ongoing deep drought conditions (going on years now in some places) and trying to buy up water rights for more water than the entire population of the area already uses just to survive. Why do they want to build these things in the worst possible place they can put them? What's the logic behind that? Oh yeah. Cheap land and corrupt officials... Nevermind...